green
Positive treatment
12.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Hudgins v. State
See State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629, 630 , 346 P.3d 1062 (2015) (Hudgins I).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gollahon
See 13 State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629, 648 , 346 P.3d 1062 (2015) (relying heavily on the analysis in State v. Hurt, 278 Kan. 676, 681-82 , 101 P.3d 1249 [2004]) (analyzing scenarios in which a jury deliberates on higher and lesser included offenses; finding error where the State "informs the jury it cannot consider the lesser included offenses if the jurors disagree with one another, i.e., there is not unanimity").
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carr
See State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629, 651 , 346 P.3d 1062 (2015) (failure to proffer excluded evidence precludes appellate review); R.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miller
(2×)
See Hudgins , 301 Kan. at 643 , 346 P.3d 1062 ("[T]he district court's use of an extensive questionnaire to assist with jury selection demonstrates exceptional care in the process.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ross
See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3408(3) (lawyers shall be permitted to question potential jurors subject to district court's reasonable restrictions; district court may also examine potential jurors); see also State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629, 635 , 346 P.3d 1062 (2015) (outlining purpose of selection process and district court's authority to regulate lawyers' questioning of potential jurors).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Spackman
See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3408(3) (lawyers shall be permitted to question potential jurors subject to district court's reasonable restrictions; district court may also examine potential jurors); see also State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629, 635 , 346 P.3d 1062 (2015) (outlining purpose of selection process and district court's authority to regulate lawyers' questioning of potential jurors).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rivera v. People
See, e.g., State v. Hudgins, 301 Kan. 629 , 346 P.3d 1062, 1072-73 (2015) (outlining the nine factors it considers in a change of venue motion due to media publicity: “(1) the degree of publicity circulated through the community; (2) the degree the publicity circulated through areas to which venue could be changed; (3) the length of time from the dissemination of the publicity to the trial date; (4) the care exercised and ease encountered injury selection; (5) the familiarity with publicity and its resultant effects upon prospective jurors or trial jurors; (6) challenges exercised by the def…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of James E. Rumsey
No. 112,923.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Mar 31, 2015.
Published
On February 27, 2015, this court issued its opinion in the instant case. In the opinion, the court imposed a 3-year suspension, stayed the imposition of that discipline, and placed the respondent, James E. Rumsey, on probation for a 3-year period. This court stated:
“Detailing a probation plan in this opinion is hampered by the lack of compliance with Rule 211(g), however. We, therefore, order respondent to submit apian of probation to the Disciplinary Administrator within 14 days of the filing of this decision. The plan must include, at a minimum, mental health therapy, some level of practice supervision, and a requirement to immediately self report any violation of the KRPC. If the parties cannot agree on a probation plan within 30 days of the filing of this decision, both parties must submit a proposal to the court. If the parties agree, they may jointly submit a proposed order of probation or simply indicate their agreement with the other party’s proposal.”
On March 13, 2015, the parties submitted a joint supervised probation plan. The court has considered and adopts the supervised probation plan. Therefore, the court incorporates the supervised probation plan into this order by reference.
It Is Therefore Ordered that James E. Rumsey be placed on probation for a 3-year period, subject to the terms and conditions detailed in the supervised probation plan.
It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports and that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2015.